Talk:The Jungle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is currently or was the subject of an Spring 2007 educational assignment.

Contents 1 Censorship 2 Fiction 3 mackinac.org seems to be a questionable source 4 http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 5 Literary analysis 6 Vandalism 7 Rudkus or Rudkos? 8 Plot? 9 Lost edition 10 POV

[edit] Censorship

A new section should be added about the censorship. Apparently it was published in a Socialist Newspaper, and was more against the capitalists who were misusing people, but no capitalist press would publish it, so he had to edit out about two chapters, making it more against the meat standards for it to be sold.--Erkin2008 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

The book is fiction, although many people take it as truth the same as many people take "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" as an accurate account. What it really is is any early example of "Gonzo Journalism". Invented by Hunter S. Thompson, the idea is that it doesn't matter how much you exaggerate, if you have caught the spiritual essence, it is the truth.

Personally I would like to see some serious entries about what was accurate and what was Gonzo. It is true the book caught the popular imagination, and may have had major beneficial effect, but I agree w xxxxxxx (can't figure out who signed it) down below that why (like all the massacres in the Viet Nam war) none of the millions of people who must have been involved said anything until a socialist reporter made a mint writing a book"67.174.53.196 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, about inflation and money value: If you try to compare things like booze and such, you will get strange results, because the very idea of a capitalist economy is the shift in price as values change (i.e. a man who has hungry children normally won't pay as much for a drink as a bachelor might be willing). There is a TRICK to solve this (it takes serious research, but once you've got the data you pretty much set for life). Find the price of an UNPROCESSED bushel of wheat (for America - rice, etc. for other cultures) at the closest farm. This is your base value. i.e. what it costs in CURRENT money to stay alive and ONLY alive. After that, everything else (even what we normally think of as necessities) is technically a luxury.67.174.53.196 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the book fiction or not? This isn't really explained anywhere in the article... -Yes it is: the book is referred to as a "novel" throughout the article.

• The family depicted in the book is fictional. However, the events and situations that the characters face are typical of the setting. Therefore, many historians consider the book to be historically accurate on broad terms. This article should be expanded to include more information about the content of the book itself.134.29.149.254 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Great book, I highly suggest it. Mainly for the socialist output.Do you think that this deserves to be added to the portion about wages in 1906?

"But a big man cannot stay drunk very long on three dollars."

Three dollars in 1906 equates to 61 dollars in 2005 -- quite enough to get drunk. An oversight? Or is it that pricey to get drunk?]

Prices don't necessarily inflate equally. It's quite possible that alcohol was much more expensive during that period of time, particularly since it couldn't be mass produced as easily. Although it does seem a little sketchy (what were alcohol prices said to be in other parts of the book?) his figures couldn't be ridiculously off when you consider he's writing about contemporaries. Sarge Baldy 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't some of the criticism be mentioned? There's a ton of it.

• If one goes to a bar in West Hollywood, California, U.S., for instance, and drinks alcoholic beverages, then the price may exceed $61 in 2005.
• I think a table of wages, food expenses, rent, the price of the home they tried to buy, and other items including the price of alcoholic drinks should be compiled for this book to put things in perspective. What is wrong with an unbiased table that both shows the legitimate and profligate spending of the Lithuanian family of Jurgis Rudkus in The Jungle with the chapters in which those monetary amounts are given?

--anon

i am distressed by the fact that the bulk of this article seems to be taken directly from the text of "of meat and myth", also linked at the end of the page and generated by the mackinak center for public policy. neither article attempts to show evidence for such assertions as, "Subsequent investigation proved that most of Sinclair’s allegations of unsanitary practices had little factual basis." the first investigation was deemed by roosevelt himself to be overly defensive of the industry. it even declared that the inspection laws were not being followed due to expense. (gabriel kolko, "meat inspection: theory and reality") the neill-reynolds report, while flawed, does vindicate some of sinclair's work. Uncleosbert 21:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)uncleosbert

Agreed, it seems strongly biased. It points out some very sketchy investigations from an organization, the federal government, very much accused in the work as being part of the problem and supportive of the meat-packing industry. It clearly ignores any possibility of bias in the government's study, and calls their findings "facts". Likewise that entire stretch of dialogue is one-sided, making an argument that the book is pure fiction with no truth to it, extending this throughout without any counter of opinion. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. This information seems biased. Also, as someone who has read the book, I don't feel four paragraphs largely in defense of the meat packing industry are appropriate on this page. Perhaps they belong elsewhere; but Sinclair was primarily writing about socialism. That's the theme of his book. This isn't a journalistic expose on meatpacking that requires vigorous fact-checking. Sinclair wrote a piece of fiction, largely to promote socialism. I'd support moving the argument on meatpacking facts or fallacies elsewhere. The book clearly had a major impact on the meatpacking industry, but placing that debate here distracts from encyclopedic coverage of the novel's plot, literary themes, and political statements. I feel a page on Sinclair's book should focus more on Sinclair's book and less on what such-and-such committee's report had to say about the aftermath of an industry mentioned in that work of fiction. --Anon, 12 December 2005

I am confused. Is not the line "Subsequent investigation proved that most of Sinclair’s allegations of unsanitary practices had little factual basis" referring to the Bureau of Animal Husbandry's report. At least, a reference to that report immediately follows that sentance. So how is that "no evidence"? If there is evidence of problems with the report, then those could be discused.

-- annon

that's it precisely... it is referring to that report only and that report is already questioned by several sources. to cite it as the only investigation as if it had been satisfactory to the fed at the time is to give an incomplete picture of the investigation conducted. in fact, doubleday conducted an independent investigation before agreeing to publish the jungle, presumably to determine if it was going to result in charges of libel. i'm rounding up some cites...

Uncleosbert 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)uncleosbert

Havin

[edit] mackinac.org seems to be a questionable source

I would very much like to know whether or not Sinclair's claims had any factual basis. One of the main sources drawed upon in the article seems very biased. It definitely has one possible glaring factual error upon a cursory review.

[edit] http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229

"Some two million visitors came to tour the stockyards and packinghouses of Chicago every year. Thousands of people worked in both. Why is it that it took a novel written by an anti-capitalist ideologue who spent but a few weeks there to unveil the real conditions to the American public?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/1900/pop.html ==

Illinois census data would suggest that the equivalent of ~40% of the entire population of Illinois or more than the entire population of Chicago would annually visit Chicago's meatpacking facilities and stockyards. I very much doubt visits to the Chicago meatpacking industry were this popular or could even bear this amount of annual traffic, even though Chicago was a major transportation hub at the time. It seems very much to me that this mackinac.org article is very biased and commits a logical fallacy in dismissing the Neill-Reynolds report. It's sole claim against the Neill-Reynolds report was that Neill and Reynolds were inexperienced in the meat-packing industry. It makes no other claim to dispute the Neill-Reynolds report. It seems to me that even those inexperienced in the meatpacking industry would be able to refute or deny some of the sanitation and safety claims in Sinclair's book. I highly suggest editing the body of the article to remove this biased source and making it more neutral until more facts come to light.

-- 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Dec 30 2000

I agree completely with what has been said here. This article seems to be very biased and mackinac.org does not appear to be a reputable site. As such, I have decided to remove the majority of the section entitled "Public Reaction and Federal Response".

-- Lvialviaquez 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literary analysis

I agree that the sentence "for lack of a proper ending" should have been deleted. It would be nice, though, to had a section entitled something like "Critical response". It's one of those works that was trounced by the critics of the time, and again over again the years, but has had so much staying power that it must now be called a classic. "Jungle as metaphor" could be a subcategory of this. Any takers? Novickas 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Judging from the amount of vandalism on this page, the novel must be assigned really often in high school. Wish there were some way to quantify that; it's too bad that they don't see any connection between this book and to issues discussed in Fast Food Nation. Novickas 22:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the book is assigned in my high school (though some 11th and 12th grade classes read excerpts), but my AP US History teacher often gives lists of terms for us to define. Though she tells us not to use Wikipedia, mostly everyone does and it wouldn't surprise me if many of them vandalise the pages they use. If you want to see the lists and maybe be prepared to protect the pages, go here. (Also, I'm not sure if the link will work. I've found that some of the links I post have died, so I'll check back in a few days to see if it still works.) --70.113.79.34 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this page has been on my watchlist since November 2006, I have seen a lot of vandalism, as well as some good-faith contributions, from various US high school IPs. They come and go in surges that probably reflect class assignments. The vandalism doesn't, however, occur often enough to justify any kind of formal page protection. It's interesting that the teachers say not to use Wikipedia; what reasons do they present against it? When I was in high school, and when my kids were, teachers said the same thing about Cliff Notes and (more recently) SparkNotes. My position has always been - the more sources of information, the better. It's always been easy to spot plagiarism and it's even easier now, when it's on the Internet; and paraphrasing sources is good practice in language usage. Sincerely, Novickas 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its just that my teacher feels its too easy for someone to modify a date or some other part of a Wikipedia article with incorrect information. She believes that most contributions are just direct copies from other sources. I also agree that the articles for the terms (did the link work?) should not be protected, but maybe they should have special attention around the time the term is due, if that's even possible. (My IP address is different because I'm typing this from school) --204.57.107.1 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So...is the issue that the teacher will not accept Wikipedia as a source in student papers? Even if paraphrased rather than directly copied? Novickas 16:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She probably wouldn't accept it as a source, but thankfully she never asks for a source. Usually she just says we shouldn't use Wikipedia (though she's okay with us going directly to the listed sources), but she doesn't try to stop us from using it. --70.113.79.34 04:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 70.113.79.34 - sure you don't want to register? I suggest you print out today's version of the article so that the teacher can take a look at it. Like other encyclopedias Wikipedia doesn't contain any original research - by policy. The articles often do point to a number of useful printed and online sources; the printed sources are very unlikely to be found in either your school's or your community's local libraries, but the online resources can be very useful. Sincerely, Novickas 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think she knows that Wikipedia has good information, she just doesn't like the chance of someone putting in a wrong date (purposely or not) or something and then everyone who used that date would get the term wrong. For example, I know that at least two of my classmates intentionally change parts of Wikipedia, from general information to outright vandalism. They do this because they know some of their classmates will see what they've done (or won't see and will get the wrong information). The misinformation is usually caught and corrected in a few days, but that still leaves a small gap that catches many of my classmates, especially those that do their terms in groups; it's one reason why I do my research earlier than everyone else and use Answers.com. This way I have less chance of hitting one of those gaps and with Answers I can see multiple sources for the same subject. (I actually have a Wikipedia account, I'll write this signed in, usually I won't sign in because I just make a few small changes) --The Omega Knight 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusations in The Jungle were true or not, the whole system was corrupt. The local government and the meatpacking plants went hand in hand in and the poor immigrant workers suffered for it. The government claimed that many accusations were false because they wanted to sell meat in Europe. It was that simple. If they made a public report that the accusations were exaggerated then the people would relax and meat would sell. Working conditions would be horrible because there were no laws against it so there were no worries and they saved money. Money is what turns the business machine around. The book itself is fiction as we all know but many of the issues were very real and I myself am thankful those issues were brought to attention because if they weren't then there may not be any laws today forbidding the atrocious acts that were committed a hundred years ago.

I removed the following sentence from "Background" which is vandalism & has nothing to do with the book: "There, Chase Norton had sexual relations with Jill for seven weeks, following the brutal murderings of his family members." Sundiiiiii 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement in the article: "Socialism and strong labor unions are the answer to all the evils that he, his family, and all their fellow sufferers have had to endure. Industry needs to value labor instead of just the product." Socialism is elimination of the wage system because it is slavery, & strong labor unions would only be needed with the capitalist wage system, so the 2 do not go together. He wanted Socialism, and an end to the capitalist wage system, like it says in the 4th sentence. The fact that we ended up only with labor unions (strikes are modern slave rebellions) happened in part because few people understood that the book was written to end the wage entirely & have Socialism (all people worldwide own all things worldwide--so food, medicine, etc, will be free). Sundiiiiii 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can some non-socialist revise this article for NPOV?

I also disagree with the last part of this sentence: "As the novel comes to a close, a socialist rally is triumphantly chanting "Chicago will be ours!", and Jurgis has caught the eye of a sympathetic young woman." Drop the words after "Chicago will be ours!" because there is no indication that they were interested in each other. They didn't even talk to each other. 69.228.239.40 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rudkus or Rudkos?

I'm a big fan of Sinclair, so I was surprised to see that "Jurgis Rudkus" was originally "Jurgis Rudkos", before Doubleday heavily censored the novel. (The Jungle, ISBN 1-884354-60-2, pp i). Should his name be substituted for what it was originally intended to be? MosheA 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It might have been changed to conform to Lithuanian grammar.

• Jurgis Rudkus → Rudkai (plural for entire family, like Smith and Smiths)
• Jurgis Rudka → Rudkos (plural for entire family)

So, Jurgis Rudkos makes no sense for a Lithuanian, while Jurgis Rudkus is perfectly normal. Renata 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubleday did not censor the novel. This is explained, along with the reason for the Lithuanian name changes, in one of the external links (the one to hnn.com) -- there is a considerable mis-information about the so-called "lost edition" that this WP article could really help clear-up. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot?

The summary can use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.53 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The pictured cover of the book says it was published by "Doubleday, Page and company;" while the info box says "Doubleday, Jabber, and company." is the pictured cover not the original printing, is the info box wrong, or do I have no idea what I'm talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanogul (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost edition

Some mention should be made of the "lost edition" - talked about in one of the external links. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Instead, what he got was tunnel vision reports from Neill and Reynolds." C'mon, wiki can do better than that. I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.12.218 (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)